title: Initial and fatigue bond strengths of nanofilled and conventional composite bonding adhesives.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the initial and fatigue shear bond strengths of a nanofilled adhesive with a conventional light-cured adhesive in an ex vivo laboratory study.
  
  
  METHODS
  Fifty hydroxyapatite discs were prepared by cold pressing. Using a standardized bonding protocol, 100 Victory series upper left central incisor brackets were bonded to discs with Transbond™ Supreme LV nanofilled composite resin and 100 brackets were bonded to discs with Transbond XT. Fifty brackets from each group were subjected to cyclic loading (5000 cycles at 2 Hz) at 50% of the mean bond strength in a Dartec Series HC10 Testing Machine. Initial (unfatigued) and fatigued bond strengths were determined by applying a shear force at the bracket/substrate interface using a custom-made metal jig in an Instron Universal Testing Machine. RESULTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: One-way analysis of variance showed that Transbond Supreme LV exhibited higher initial mean bond strength than Transbond XT (P = 0·001). No statistically significant difference was found between the fatigue bond strengths of Transbond Supreme LV and Transbond XT (P = 0·323). Two-way analysis of variance demonstrated statistically significant differences when the effect of the composite resin (P = 0·013) and fatigue (P = 0·017) were considered individually. However, when considered in combination there was no statistical significance (P = 0·09). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed superior survival of unfatigued brackets with Transbond Supreme LV, but there was no significant difference between the adhesives after fatiguing.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The initial bond strength of Transbond Supreme LV was significantly higher than Transbond XT, while the fatigue bond strengths of both resins were comparable. Overall, Transbond Supreme LV demonstrated superior survival under loading than Transbond XT. However, while this was statistically significant for the initial loading, it was not significant after fatiguing. Although these laboratory findings are useful as indicators of potential clinical performance, extrapolation of these results should be carried out with caution.
authors.affiliation: UCL Eastman Dental Institute, London, UK.
authors.forename: Afnan A
authors.initials: AA
authors.lastname: BenGassem
authors.forename: George
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Georgiou
authors.forename: Steven Peter
authors.initials: SP
authors.lastname: Jones
mesh_terms: D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate / Q000737:chemistry; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry*; D055117:Curing Lights, Dental; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis / Q000295:instrumentation; D017886:Durapatite / Q000737:chemistry; D006801:Humans; D055115:Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives / Q000295:instrumentation; D008422:Materials Testing; D053761:Nanocomposites / Q000737:chemistry*; D016910:Orthodontic Brackets; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry*; D033081:Shear Strength; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D016019:Survival Analysis; D013997:Time Factors
chemical_list: D003188:Composite Resins; D019279:Resin Cements; C477790:Transbond XT; C065742:Transbond; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; D017886:Durapatite
keywords: Adhesives; bond strength; fatigue; nanofilled resin